Why Has The Killing Of A Lion Spawned Widespread Outrage?

[ad_orientem]

Completely wrong. You're trying to compare apples and oranges or in this case, killing for trophy and killing for food. As I said earlier, meat is by the far the best and most accessible form of protein. That's why man started eating meat in the first place. Do you know how many beans you have to eat to get 200g of protein?

[Owlswing]

That's because you're odd.

There goes the Irony-O-Meter.

False reasoning. Humans eat meat because it's by far the best and most accessible form of protein. The animals are killed for nourishment not pleasure.

So if it's for "nourishment not pleasure", why not eat meat as-is instead of cooking it (which is to say, partially burning it) in a variety of ways with the addition of a variety of supplements and sauces?

You are not SAlex Skyraving are you, Shaker? Cos you are beginning to sound like him!

[Shaker]

Completely wrong. You're trying to compare apples and oranges or in this case, killing for trophy and killing for food. As I said earlier, meat is by the far the best and most accessible form of protein. That's why man started eating meat in the first place. Do you know how many beans you have to eat to get 200g of protein?

No, I have no idea. I don't see why it matters, either, for a variety of reasons.

One is that beans aren't sentient; they're not moral patients in the way that animals killed for food are, which makes them - the animals, I mean, not the beans - morally relevant. Therefore the beans are preferable,

Another is that as well as protein the beans also provide essential things of which meat has little or none, such as dietary fibre.

Another is that for the vast, vast majority of people a lack of protein isn't an issue; the surfeit of it is. As with fat, salt and sugar, most people consume too much rather than too little - far more than they actually need.

And where does this arbitrary 200g of protein come from, exactly? A quick Google suggests that on current medical evidence the average man requires around 56g per day (whereas in actual fact he eats about 88g per day*) - so whence your 200g?

* The British Nutrition Foundation: http://goo.gl/mfdwms

[ad_orientem]

For instance if you do vigorous exercise everyday. So for me that's about 3000kcal per day which includes about 200-240g of protein. If you had to do that with vegetables alone you have to eat stupid amounts.

[Shaker]

For instance if you do vigorous exercise everyday. So for me that's about 3000kcal per day which includes about 200-240g of protein a day.

Excellent. So eat more beans, pulses, nuts and legumes. Sorted.

[ad_orientem]

For instance if you do vigorous exercise everyday. So for me that's about 3000kcal per day which includes about 200-240g of protein a day.

Excellent. So eat more beans, pulses, nuts and legumes. Sorted.

The amounts you'd have to eat are so great you can't really do it, especially if you don't use dairy products. Do you use dairy producs?

[Shaker]

The amounts you'd have to eat are so great you can't really do it, especially if you don't use dairy products.

What a feeble cop-out, given the fact that such a massive variety of different foods - or, I should say, food types - contain protein.

For example: http://goo.gl/jEr8ow

Do you use dairy producs?

No.

[BeRational]

We have to be careful here.

On the thread about Sunday opening the point was made that if you do not want to shop on Sunday, then don't, but don't try to force your idea of what Sunday is for on everyone.

The same can be said of hunting.

I don't like it, and I do not do it. I do shoot clays, but not live birds though many people I know do.

[Shaker]

We have to be careful here.

On the thread about Sunday opening the point was made that if you do not want to shop on Sunday, then don't, but don't try to force your idea of what Sunday is for on everyone.

The difference shouldn't need pointing out, but I'm sure it will be before long.

[BeRational]

We have to be careful here.

On the thread about Sunday opening the point was made that if you do not want to shop on Sunday, then don't, but don't try to force your idea of what Sunday is for on everyone.

The difference shouldn't need pointing out, but I'm sure it will be before long.

Well, it does really. You are using the same tactics as the Sunday closing people. Eat this, eat that, do this do that.

Alternatively, they could of course do what they want to legally do.

[Shaker]

Well, it does really. You are using the same tactics as the Sunday closing people. Eat this, eat that, do this do that.

I do not have that power, but would certainly exercise it if I did.

Alternatively, they could of course do what they want to legally do.

Halal/shechita slaughter methods are also legal, but shouldn't be. Legal and right (right in the moral sense) do not always coincide. That a thing is legal tells you one thing alone about it; that it is legal, not that it is right and proper to do.

[BeRational]

Well, it does really. You are using the same tactics as the Sunday closing people. Eat this, eat that, do this do that.

I do not have that power, but would certainly exercise it if I did.

But we both agreed this tactic was wrong when employed by the Sunday close people.

[Shaker]

Sunday trading doesn't involve the killing of sentient creatures for no valid reason. Not even in Poundland.

People shop on a Sunday if they want to and work on a Sunday if they want to - that's how it's supposed to work. In other words, choice.

A pig has no choice in whether it wishes to be confined to a farrowing crate or not before being turned into sausages. There's your difference.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

Ah right! Sunday opening times in Scotland are legal but does it make it right.

Dear Mods,

What!! It was Berational who derailed, not me!!

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Sunday trading doesn't involve the killing of sentient creatures for no valid reason. Not even in Poundland.

People shop on a Sunday if they want to and work on a Sunday if they want to - that's how it's supposed to work. In other words, choice.

A pig has no choice in whether it wishes to be confined to a farrowing crate or not before being turned into sausages. There's your difference.

I understand all that, but it really is irrelevant.
The differences are irrelevant if they are legal. The fact you do not approve and others do is exactly the same as the Sunday opening issue.

[Shaker]

Sunday trading doesn't involve the killing of sentient creatures for no valid reason. Not even in Poundland.

People shop on a Sunday if they want to and work on a Sunday if they want to - that's how it's supposed to work. In other words, choice.

A pig has no choice in whether it wishes to be confined to a farrowing crate or not before being turned into sausages. There's your difference.

I understand all that, but it really is irrelevant.
The differences are irrelevant if they are legal. The fact you do not approve and others do is exactly the same as the Sunday opening issue.

It's entirely relevant. Beyond what I've already stated in my previous post especially, I can't help you.

[L.A.]

Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.

Which is equally unnecessary.

To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.

They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.

Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.

[BeRational]

Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.

Which is equally unnecessary.

To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.

They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.

Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.

I understand and agree.

But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.

For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.

Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.

[L.A.]

Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.

Which is equally unnecessary.

To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.

They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.

Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.

I understand and agree.

But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.

For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.

Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.

Well, the legality of his action is rather questionably I gather, but that aside, I think that a person who kills for pleasure is likely to have some serious psychological problem - so should he be practising dentistry?

I certainly wouldn't want to be one of his patients 

[BeRational]

Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.

Which is equally unnecessary.

To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.

They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.

Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.

I understand and agree.

But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.

For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.

Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.

Well, the legality of his action is rather questionably I gather, but that aside, I think that a person who kills for pleasure is likely to have some serious psychological problem - so should he be practising dentistry?

I certainly wouldn't want to be one of his patients 

Hunting is quite a popular sport in the US. Not something I would do, but why should what I would do have any impact on them.

That's the point I am trying to make.

[L.A.]

Code: [Select]

Hunting is quite a popular sport in the US. Not something I would do, but why should what I would do have any impact on them.

That's the point I am trying to make.
I agree with you to an extent, but I think that there comes a point were a fascination with guns and killing equates to a particularly dangerous kind of madness.

[Udayana]

BR:
You are not making your point very clearly. Many of his own countrymen want him to stop whether it is legal or not (mostly not).

[Owlswing]

Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.

Which is equally unnecessary.

To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.

They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.

Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.

I understand and agree.

But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.

For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.

Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.

The problem is that what he, or his group, did was NOT legal.

The lion was in a protected wildlife reserve, and was lured from that protected area with bait so that he could be killed - therefore what they did was not legal and, as his companions are finding out, is classified as poaching and gets you ten years in the can.

[BeRational]

Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.

Which is equally unnecessary.

To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.

They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.

Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.

I understand and agree.

But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.

For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.

Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.

The problem is that what he, or his group, did was NOT legal.

The lion was in a protected wildlife reserve, and was lured from that protected area with bait so that he could be killed - therefore what they did was not legal and, as his companions are finding out, is classified as poaching and gets you ten years in the can.

I totally agree in this case.

I was just responding to the fact that this was being used against all hunting.

[ad_orientem]

The amounts you'd have to eat are so great you can't really do it, especially if you don't use dairy products.

What a feeble cop-out, given the fact that such a massive variety of different foods - or, I should say, food types - contain protein.

For example: http://goo.gl/jEr8ow

Do you use dairy producs?

No.

It's not a cop-out at all. There's a very practical reason why man has chosen meat as his primary source of protein: it's not too hard to get, it's tasty and you don't have to eat kilos of the stuff. Pound for pound it's very effecient. I feel quite sad for you that you have to use false reasoning to try and inpute guilt upon people you disagree with.

As for dairy, good. At least you're consistent.